Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#1697: -

If I had a clue, insults, insults, insults......

No wonder you lot have never left a real name to asign yourself, you ought to get your facts right before putting them to paper! The issue of ownership, or not of the common could not be more simple and yet your INTERPRETATION of reality still is short on facts that would stand scrutiny in a high court.

Subsequent to the 1965 commons registration act, Hartlebury common was vested to the local authority as a rural common, or should have been for guardianship puposes only. To maintain the commons ancient and lawful protections. NOT as owners, the local authority had no more rights than anybody else. The commissionars direction was as such. They had the authority to COMPELL a local authority to do this , I think this is where you are getting mixed up.

GUARDIANSHIP, not OWNERSHIP.

Subsequent claims such as yours are based on hearsay with no evidence. You can say what you want about the defra archive but you cannot deny it is a register of unowned commons. Hartlebury is a RURAL common, the only regulated one being Clent in worcestershire.

I say again, the claim to OWNERSHIP by WCC is nothing but a lie based on hearsay and deception. There is not a single document anywhere to support such a claim including the laughable land registry registration, or the 1968 conveyance document. Both claims have more holes than a colander, which is compounded, when the travelling comunity are told that their claims to freehold, are in some cases bogus as the church NEVER had ANY AUTHORITY at Hartlebury Common.

I don't know who you are but I wish I did, We put our colours to the mast, you know where we are. Up and down the country these schemes are universaly hated and despised. All the objections are the same, the sham public meetings, the sham enquiries, the sham conservation and unsuprisingly, the public are very aware of this.

All this, is about securing funding from europe and job creation, it has nothing to do with our NATURAL england.

Steve McCarron

#1701: steve mccarron - Re:

Think you will find you are replying not to one person but 2

phase 2 has begun long may it reign :)

#1702: - Re: Re:

Only someone like you could use text abbreviations to make a smiley face. Not very mature are we.

The grandiously titled phase 2. Do you mean the continued landscaping of hartlebury common. I don't know if you listen to the news, we are already facing hosepipe bans and they are already in place in the south east. This IS important and relevant because it is unprecedented and given the strata of the common potentially dangerous to all the species of  life there. Heather will not grow on sand, very little will and yet the promotion and growth of sandy areas is a result of the policy executed at the common.

This defoliation is dangerous and unnecesary but worth it if it gives you credebility.

Put it this way. One day, funding is provided for a eec promoted inititave. The conservation, restoration, excavation and the re-creation of our buried, archealogical past. There would be limitless funds providing the work began in earnest. Suddenley, the marginalised and ignored would hold sway. They would never turn down the opportunity to re-locate existing housing whatever the cost to human misery (re-flooding norfolk broads), infrastructure chaos to farming could ensue as protection orders are slapped all over the place as an archealogical monster grows out of all proportion and our landscapes are changed out of all recognition

The operatives themselves would be the last people on earth to question this gift of power and influence. This is why, in the face of such misery and destruction your grinning local ranger will tell you that there is no damage to the scilly isles or hartlebury common. Like archaeologists, these rangers. et al, shared the same status up until recently. They would not want to see the truth even if you put it in their lap. I believe that this mentality runs up to the highest levels of administration, if it was paying your mortgage, why worry. I am certain given the deliberate re-interpretation of the rio accord though, that social modelling is at work here after the demise of british industry. 76% gdp in britain is through the service industries now and increasing. Natural England, et al, were dreamed up by some oxbridge wiseguys who's lateral thinking is used to keep the country on course. All but those at the very top believe in this illusion of BAP's and HLS's and bio diversity. What we are doing in this country has NO relationship to the aspirations of agenda 21.

"Subsequent to the 1965 commons registration act, Hartlebury common was vested to the local authority as a rural common, or should have been for guardianship puposes only. To maintain the commons ancient and lawful protections. NOT as owners, the local authority had no more rights than anybody else. The commissionars direction was as such. They had the authority to COMPELL a local authority to do this , I think this is where you are getting mixed up."

The above in quotes is taken from my previous post, I could also add to this paragraph the following FACTS. In 1925 and again in 1958, the land registration acts seeking to identify land ownership in the british isles failed to flag up Hartlebury Common ownership. Three times in total, the ownership of the common by the church has eluded detection. The lord does move in mysterious ways, including invisibilty.

The facilitation for the enlosure similtaneously of 1000's of miles of our formerley open spaces accross the british isles and there grazing with cattle is neccesary to facilitate cash from europe and nothing more. Trouble is, it is being done on land that traditionally was free from this kind of interference, but also the funding comes from the tax payer. The goverment could not be seen to be creating this many jobs and empires directly, so the money has been laundered through europe.

So called "Natural England" and "Bio diversity" are just the patsies

Steve McCarron

PS.

Martin Barnett, Worcestershire County Council, countryside services, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement  to a court.

David Shepherd, Worcstershire County Council, countryside services, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement to a court.

June Salter, former councilor, former mayoress, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement to a court.

I could go on, whether it is certain members of the police acting, innapropriatley, and unethically, or other members of the  council behaving in the same way. I might be minded to describe actuall events and apologies recieved but it sufices to say that these people know who I am talking about and why.

We visit the common every day, and have yet to be arrested? or even censored. Put it this way. If someone jumps in your garden, you contact the police to say you have an intruder and have them removed. If they keep doing it you obtain an injunction to stop them. If they do it again you contact the police, who notify the court and a prosecution takes place.

However, if you consistentley refuse to take action, the police will quite rightley advise that their time is being wasted and the situation is not enforcable as you will not allow either a criminal prosecution subject to arrest, or the enforcement of an injunction.

The reason that worcetsrshire county council will not take us to court is because they know that....

a/ Their planning application for work to hartlebury common was fraudulent and illegal subject to false claims of ownership.

b/ Ditto, their application for funding from Natural England.

c/ The 1968 conveyance document was manufactured by a worcestershire county council employee or employees.

d/ If the council had purchased Hartlebury Common in 1968, thery should have registered it then with the land registry, this would have been compulsary.

c/ they have no other documents than other than the 1968 conveyance which is evidenced as fruadulent by at least the land registration acts registrations and the royal commission survey.

Their is more, much more which would have to be disclosed in open court but the rotten core of corruption plays their silly games of claims of ownership with the vain and ignorant and plays out this charade of belief.

Simon Mallinson might critizise my "Canard of belief" about the ownership of the common but in comparison he and his councils behaviour and assertions through the court process (If it can be called that) is like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

Simon, if you cannott wake up to reality, or choose not to, then you are the worst of public servants as are your sycophantic gullibal lackies. Therefore you are not fit for purpose and are a liar.

Steve McCarron

WE SAID..... "We visit the common every day, and have yet to be arrested? or even censored.



YOU REPLIED......   Probably because everyone has better things to do than sit around waiting for you to appear everyday? I don't think they find you important enough in the grand scheme of daily council life.

'Put it this way. If someone jumps in your garden, you contact the police to say you have an intruder and have them removed.'

Again, probably because no one is interested enough in waiting around for you to appear.

'if you consistentley refuse to take action, the police will quite rightley advise that their time is being wasted'

If you're not sitting around wasting time waiting for someone to walk past, you're not going to be able to report them. If you constantly reported someone for walking past in a public area then you'd be done for wasting police time.

They took you to court before and will eventually recoup the money wasted because of your actions.

For your information, we have repeatedley told WCC, justice Khan, Justice McKenzie and the police and the junta collectiveley that we have no intention of paying any monies of any sort and  that we have not the slightest intention of complying with ANY court order. So shove that in your pipe and smoke it !!!

They won't keep persuing court action more likely because it's stupidly expensive, and it takes them ages to get organised to do anything anyway, lets face it, it's the council.

McCarron, you're constantly trying to run this dead horse round in circles and it's not half getting boring. Lets see if it works or not, if it doesn't work they'll give up and come up with a new hobby horse anyway."

If someone jumps in your garden, BREAKING YOUR FENCE IN THE PROCESS, and refuses to move, you contact the police to say you have an intruder and have them removed and use your right to recourse to an injunction, or bail conditions preventing their stated aim of returning to repeat the process and then prosecution is yours also. If they keep doing it you obtain an injunction, if not already, and a prosecution takes place again,  the police, subject to your consent press charges again. So there are plenty of opportunities for pain free, cheap public vilification for the council


This is how the real legal world works my friend, not the fairy tale law and procedure you champion in your reply,

"The council are to busy and are not organised" Etc, Etc, Etc.  Your so funny, does it take you long to make this kind of stuff up?

The broken mechanism is the resposibility of WCC,  who refuse to do the right thing. Shut us up once and for all by making an example of us through the criminal court and the local Tory press as if we had vandalised a bush shelter. WHY NOT, you work it out, but I think you know.

WE are not walking on a public place every day, WE are walking on a place that WCC claims to own! Why are we not being subject to the terms of an injunction preventing this?

Somebody is telling very big lies, it is not us. As usual, you are ANONYMOUS, and if I was displaying a similar level of intelect, I would want to remain anonymous with the sorts of comments you are making.

Why dont you stick to what you think you know, the 1968 conveyance document and the land registry document, both a load of fraudulent mishmash, but at least you will be on familiar ground. Mind you, you'l be to busy tarting up the common and increasing it's appearence to the Mohave desert. well done, some hobby horses cannott be resurected, no matter what you might think or have been told.

Until recentley, our heaths, commons, chases, moors and other open spaces where the last publicly available heritages. Now they are in the control of individuals. You might feel comfortable handing over our heritage on  a plate to an industrial faux conservation movement, but us and the vast majority of people are very unhappy with this state of affairs.

You must feel PROUD

Steve McCarron

#1712: steve mccarron - Cod Law

How about they aren't putting you through a criminal process for going on the common is because they don't want you to stop enjoying the common and its access but would rather that you didn't cut down the fences causing many hundreds of pounds of damages.....


you claim everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or idiotic, how have you "oh brainer than the rest of us" not worked that out........

#1717: - Re: Cod Law

"How about they aren't putting you through a criminal process for going on the common is because they don't want you to stop enjoying the common and its access but would rather that you didn't cut down the fences causing many hundreds of pounds of damages....."   

This statement is counter to the councils injunction LIFETIME to prevent us going on the common. I don't think they are bothered whether we enjoy it or not. Another masterpeice of perverse logic from you. No wonder people think you are stupid!


"you claim everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or idiotic, how have you "oh brainer than the rest of us" not worked that out........" ?????????

Only someone like you could use text abbreviations to make a smiley face. Not very mature are we.

The grandiously titled phase 2. Do you mean the continued landscaping of hartlebury common. I don't know if you listen to the news, we are already facing hosepipe bans and they are already in place in the south east. This IS important and relevant because it is unprecedented and given the strata of the common potentially dangerous to all the species of life there. Heather will not grow on sand, very little will and yet the promotion and growth of sandy areas is a result of the policy executed at the common.

This defoliation is dangerous and unnecesary but worth it if it gives you credebility.

Put it this way. One day, funding is provided for a eec promoted inititave. The conservation, restoration, excavation and the re-creation of our buried, archealogical past. There would be limitless funds providing the work began in earnest. Suddenley, the marginalised and ignored would hold sway. They would never turn down the opportunity to re-locate existing housing whatever the cost to human misery (re-flooding norfolk broads), infrastructure chaos to farming could ensue as protection orders are slapped all over the place as an archealogical monster grows out of all proportion and our landscapes are changed out of all recognition

The operatives themselves would be the last people on earth to question this gift of power and influence. This is why, in the face of such misery and destruction your grinning local ranger will tell you that there is no damage to the scilly isles or hartlebury common. Like archaeologists, these rangers. et al, shared the same status up until recently. They would not want to see the truth even if you put it in their lap. I believe that this mentality runs up to the highest levels of administration, if it was paying your mortgage, why worry. I am certain given the deliberate re-interpretation of the rio accord though, that social modelling is at work here after the demise of british industry. 76% gdp in britain is through the service industries now and increasing. Natural England, et al, were dreamed up by some oxbridge wiseguys who's lateral thinking is used to keep the country on course. All but those at the very top believe in this illusion of BAP's and HLS's and bio diversity. What we are doing in this country has NO relationship to the aspirations of agenda 21.

"Subsequent to the 1965 commons registration act, Hartlebury common was vested to the local authority as a rural common, or should have been for guardianship puposes only. To maintain the commons ancient and lawful protections. NOT as owners, the local authority had no more rights than anybody else. The commissionars direction was as such. They had the authority to COMPELL a local authority to do this , I think this is where you are getting mixed up."

The above in quotes is taken from my previous post, I could also add to this paragraph the following FACTS. In 1925 and again in 1958, the land registration acts seeking to identify land ownership in the british isles failed to flag up Hartlebury Common ownership. Three times in total, the ownership of the common by the church has eluded detection. The lord does move in mysterious ways, including invisibilty.

The facilitation for the enlosure similtaneously of 1000's of miles of our formerley open spaces accross the british isles and there grazing with cattle is neccesary to facilitate cash from europe and nothing more. Trouble is, it is being done on land that traditionally was free from this kind of interference, but also the funding comes from the tax payer. The goverment could not be seen to be creating this many jobs and empires directly, so the money has been laundered through europe.

So called "Natural England" and "Bio diversity" are just the patsies

Steve McCarron

PS.

Martin Barnett, Worcestershire County Council, countryside services, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement to a court.

David Shepherd, Worcstershire County Council, countryside services, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement to a court.

June Salter, former councilor, former mayoress, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement to a court.

I could go on, whether it is certain members of the police acting, innapropriatley, and unethically, or other members of the council behaving in the same way. I might be minded to describe actuall events and apologies recieved but it sufices to say that these people know who I am talking about and why.

We visit the common every day, and have yet to be arrested? or even censored. Put it this way. If someone jumps in your garden, you contact the police to say you have an intruder and have them removed. If they keep doing it you obtain an injunction to stop them. If they do it again you contact the police, who notify the court and a prosecution takes place.

However, if you consistentley refuse to take action, the police will quite rightley advise that their time is being wasted and the situation is not enforcable as you will not allow either a criminal prosecution subject to arrest, or the enforcement of an injunction.

The reason that worcetsrshire county council will not take us to court is because they know that....

a/ Their planning application for work to hartlebury common was fraudulent and illegal subject to false claims of ownership.

b/ Ditto, their application for funding from Natural England.

c/ The 1968 conveyance document was manufactured by a worcestershire county council employee or employees.

d/ If the council had purchased Hartlebury Common in 1968, thery should have registered it then with the land registry, this would have been compulsary.

c/ they have no other documents than other than the 1968 conveyance which is evidenced as fruadulent by at least the land registration acts registrations and the royal commission survey.

Their is more, much more which would have to be disclosed in open court but the rotten core of corruption plays their silly games of claims of ownership with the vain and ignorant and plays out this charade of belief.

Simon Mallinson might critizise my "Canard of belief" about the ownership of the common but in comparison he and his councils behaviour and assertions through the court process (If it can be called that) is like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

Simon, if you cannott wake up to reality, or choose not to, then you are the worst of public servants as are your sycophantic gullibal lackies. Therefore you are not fit for purpose and are a liar.

Steve McCarron